U.S. A-10 Divestiture Plan

[JNDVirtual]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... te-Leaders

I didn't want to post this to the MAIW package update forums because of the battle in Congress about this plan, but I know that some folks are adding the F-35 to their AI flightplans. If the plan to retire all A-10s is approved, here is how A-10 units are affected:

2015
The following units will lose their aircraft (all units active duty unless otherwise noted):

• 25th Fighter Squadron, Osan AB ROK

• 40th Flight Test Squadron, Eglin AFB FL

• 47th Fighter Squadron, Davis-Monthan AFB AZ (AFRC)

• 66th Weapons Squadron, Nellis AFB NV

• 74th Fighter Squadron, Moody AFB GA

• 190th Fighter Squadron, Idaho Air National Guard, to associate with the 366th Fighter Wing, Mountain Home Air Force Base (F-15E)

• 354th Fighter Squadron, Davis-Monthan AFB AZ

• 357th Fighter Squadron, Davis-Monthan AFB AZ

2016

• 75th Fighter Squadron, Moody AFB GA to lose aircraft

2017

• 107th Fighter Squadron, Michigan Air National Guard, to receive eight KC-135s (could be coming from Altus AFB OK or McConnell AFB KS as they transition to the KC-46A)

2018

• 104th Fighter Squadron, Maryland Air National Guard, to receive eight C-130Js

• 303rd Fighter Squadron, Whiteman AFB MO (AFRC), to receive 18 Block 40 F-16s (could be coming from Luke AFB AZ or Hill AFB UT as they transition to the F-35A)

2019

• 45th Fighter Squadron, Davis-Monthan AFB AZ (AFRC), to receive 18 Block 40 F-16s (could be coming from Luke AFB AZ or Hill AFB UT as they transition to the F-35A)

• 163rd Fighter Squadron, Indiana Air National Guard, to receive 18 Block 40 F-16s (could be coming from Luke AFB AZ or Hill AFB UT as they transition to the F-35A)

[Victory103]

I feel sick.

Good poster floating around the interwebs:

F-15C(multi-role): OCA/DCA
A-10C(single-role): CAS/FAC/CSAR/SCAR/ASUW etc

At least I get to watch/listen to the 303rd FS Hawgs now, just took over from the Moody guys:

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/331324/30 ... fghanistan

[reconmercs]

Its still baffling to me why the air force is trying to get rid of an aircraft that they don't have a viable replacement for, especially when every war we've fought in the last decade have been ground wars where the Hawg doesn't have an equal when it comes to loiter time, payload and versatility..

but stealth will fix everything

[JNDVirtual]

The Air Force can only follow the lead of their civilian bosses. Those bosses have applied the meat cleaver to the budget. And if I learned from serving in the Air Force, one of the major lessons was that you don't give back ANYTHING. A lot of the waste and such is because once you give something back, you're not getting it again. If our unit had money left over at the end of the year, you better believe we were buying TVs and paint and new pool tables and whatever else, because if we gave that surplus back, it was getting cut. There was no socking it away for a rainy day, either. You simply had to play the game or suffer the consequences.

If the Air Force has to sacrifice every single weapon system for the F-35, they'll do it, because they already learned their lesson from the reduced F-22 buy, the cancelled replacement for the Hueys in the missile field, and the near-catastrophe with the KC-46.

It sucks, I know, but as soon as they start whittling away F-35 buys, it's a wrap, especially with partner nations now antsy as hell seeing us about to apply that meat cleaver to a project they all put in on. The folks hollering the loudest about not cutting the A-10 are the ones who are twiddling their thumbs when it comes to passing anything resembling a decent budget. It's all lip service. Even if the A-10 was indeed outdated and obsolete, NOBODY would let it go without a fight, especially senators who have them in their states (because those states' governors would be on the phone to Washington, too).

[Joseph29]

To me the A-10 seems like a perfect fit for the Marines! It was designed for close air support of ground forces, and that is basically what the planes for the Marines do now.

[Victory103]

A quick pic of 2 "KC" A-10C launching from OAIX, I never mind holding for these guys!

https://scontent-a-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 6395_o.jpg

[maddog65]

http://www.navytimes.com/article/201405 ... ment-plans
From the article...

Support For the Warthog
The most high-profile amendment passed by the committee came late in the nearly 13-hour session: a bipartisan measure that would, if included in the final bill, block the Air Force’s plan to retire the A-10 fleet to save money.

The amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Rob Bishop of Utah and Austin Scott of Georgia, as well as Democratic Rep. Ron Barbor of Arizona. Initially, the amendment failed via voice vote — though it sounded like there were more supporters. The measure later passed 41-20 in a roll-call vote.

The amendment kills a compromise on the A-10 inserted into the bill by McKeon that called for the aircraft to be placed in “type-1000 storage,” meaning they would be wrapped in latex but be able to return to active duty.

Instead, the bipartisan amendment prohibits such a move, or a retirement, until the US comptroller general makes a number of certifications and completes several studies, including a report to evaluate all Air Force platforms that are used for close-air-support (CAS) missions.

The comptroller general also would be required to assess the cost per plane for conducting CAS missions, such as whether other aircraft are able to successfully perform CAS missions, and the capabilities of each plane used in that role.

Late Wednesday evening, the panel approved, via voice vote, another bipartisan amendment. This one, offered by Reps. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., and William Enyart, D-Ill., blocks Army plans to shrink its force and shift Apache helicopters from the Guard to the active force.

Those plans would be blocked unless the US comptroller general signs off on a list of data used by the Army to justify its end-strength shrinkage and Apache transfer proposals.

The intricate measure directs the comptroller general to look at very specific things, such as any “analyses of counter proposals” submitted to Army and Army National Guard leaders — and conducted by the Army or the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shop — that were used to make any proposals.

It also orders the comptroller general to look at the force-structure model used in the Army’s 2015 budget plan, as well as cost-analysis models used to determine which aviation platforms should reside in the active force and the Guard. Finally, the comptroller general must examine operational-readiness rates for the last five years for the platforms that comprise Army and Guard aviation brigades.

Notably, minutes before the voice vote, McKeon informed his members that the A-10 is no longer performing CAS missions in Afghanistan.